One bad apple is all it takes
by digby
Yesterday I put up a short post about how the Blue Dogs rule the House. Here's an example of how they rule in the Senate:
The White House and top Senate Democratic leaders are quietly mounting a pressure campaign to keep Sen. Ben Nelson from retiring, fearing their majority will be in greater peril if the two-term Nebraskan decides to quit.
In back-channel discussions, private meetings over Chinese food and in conversations on the Senate floor, party leaders have been regularly checking in with the conservative Democrat to talk to him about the race, assuring him that not only would he have greater influence and seniority in another term, but the Democratic machine will fully engage in his race if he runs again.
Ben Nelson is a conservative who functions as a member of the GOP within the Democratic Party. It's true that he makes it possible for Harry Reid to be the majority leader, but what's the difference if the other side filibusters everything? I would argue that giving this man greater seniority and influence is worse than losing the majority. It leaves the country even less of a functioning opposition to the plutocrats and marginalizes the wishes of the base of the Democratic Party even more that it already is.
Ask yourself if they would beg Bernie Sanders to stay if he were the one retiring. I would say no. It's true that they would likely be able to recruit a Democrat to take his place --- he's from Vermont --- but it would undoubtedly be one who is less progressive, and the last thing they would want is to give more power and influence to anyone to the left of Obama.
This is the problem. The Republicans have nearly completed their purge of "moderates" (who would have been considered right wing just a couple of decades ago) and are engaged in hand-to-hand political combat. The Democrats are still fighting the last war, moving their useless Maginot Line ever backwards to the point where having the majority translates into slightly less kooky conservative policies that what we'd have with the Republicans.
It's highly unlikely that the party will lose the White House, so there should be a backstop against the worst GOP excesses after 2012. If they lose the majority I'm hard pressed to see what the difference would be. The Republicans control it with the filibuster as it is. Lieberman's already going and losing Nelson as well would be clarifying and demand a different strategy.
It's hard to know if they even want one at this point. The defacto single Party rule works for them in many ways. But the American people deserve a choice in their elections and since our system is built for two parties* it's the Democrats who are failing to deliver that choice by wining and dining full blown conservatives and tailoring their strategy around them.
*Yes, we could have third parties but without systemic change they will not accomplish what they seek to accomplish. And I'm for the systemic change. I honestly don't see what's so sacred about our electoral system or our three branches.
.